Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is Britain Destroying it's own military?


and-then

Recommended Posts

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9181/british-military

First, this is NOT a "hit" piece against the UK military.

The author posits that some in the political echelons are waging a vendetta against current and former military service members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  My question is, do you think it's actually happening and if so do you feel it is justified?  

  I saw this article and realized that something systematic seems to be underway in the US and the UK regarding our militaries. In the US it is directed by the Left, managed by the president.  Over here, the targets are not enlisted men or junior officers, it's the leaders at the Flag ranks.  Quite a number of Generals and Admirals have been purged since Obama's first year.  Of course, there is disagreement on why it's happening and whether it is excessive compared to other presidents but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Flag officers are being fired outright or hit with reassignments that dead-end their careers so that they retire in numbers higher than usual.  Also, the impetus for them leaving tends to be about them not toeing the line in Obama's world.  Speaking out in any way politically - in ANY setting - will get you gone pretty quickly if your opinions don't match his.  There are CTs about him dumping officers who state they would refuse to fire on US citizens but I doubt that is true. 

In both instances, this seems to be about currying favor among the pro-Islamic camp in the halls of government.  This is ALSO NOT an anti-Muslim screed.  If any other group was substituted for Muslims and the behavior was equivalent then it would seem preposterous for our governments to, at ALL costs, avoid even an appearance of judgment against that group, even when we were actually fighting them and losing men on the field.  So why do our governments refuse to name and openly state the resistance to this scourge of fundamentalist Islam?  Is the Left actually anti-British and anti-US?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe its familes from Iraq and Afghanistan are trying to get soliderw who had commited war crimes, if there is any evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elements of the British establishment in Whitehall think their own soldiers are "bad," and terrorists are "freedom fighters,"

It might perhaps be as well to remember that the "Insurgents" in Iraq wouldn't in fact have been "terrorists" if their country hadn't been invaded & occupied in the first place. If it had been, say, the Russians that had invaded some middle eastern country that was no possible threat to themselves, would those who fought them be regarded as terrorists or freedom fighters? Your point of view depends entirely on whether it's your country that's done the invading, doesn't it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

I believe its familes from Iraq and Afghanistan are trying to get soliderw who had commited war crimes, if there is any evidence

The article mentions some cases that have been investigated independently more than 4 times.  4-5 separate, independent investigations.  Millions of pounds and ongoing legal stress for the soldiers and their families.  Bankruptcy, divorce, all because someone seems to have an axe to grind.  If there was clear evidence of some atrocity - like the US sergeant, Robert Bales, who massacred 16 sleeping Afghans, then by all mean, punish the soldier/marine to the fullest extent of the law.  Bales avoided the death penalty - which I found to be an EGREGIOUS miscarriage of Justice but he will never see the outside of a prison again.  Here in America, we have a guarantee against double jeopardy when a person's life is at stake.  If the evidence is there it should be found within a reasonable time frame and there should be adjudication and an end of the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, and then said:

 Quite a number of Generals and Admirals have been purged since Obama's first year.

And considering the amount of deranged bluster that most of these brasshats seem to come out with about the "threat from", currently, Russia, that's perhaps not such a bad thing. Could he get rid of Gen. Strangelove, the current NATO Chief, next, please? there's someone who's genuinely insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

Elements of the British establishment in Whitehall think their own soldiers are "bad," and terrorists are "freedom fighters,"

It might perhaps be as well to remember that the "Insurgents" in Iraq wouldn't in fact have been "terrorists" if their country hadn't been invaded & occupied in the first place. If it had been, say, the Russians that had invaded some middle eastern country that was no possible threat to themselves, would those who fought them be regarded as terrorists or freedom fighters? Your point of view depends entirely on whether it's your country that's done the invading, doesn't it.

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.  At issue here, though, is an arm of the UK government repeatedly attempting to prosecute the same purported crime, even though insufficient evidence could be brought forward for conviction.  At least, that's the way I understood the article.  My question isn't whether some crimes, even atrocities, were committed by UK and US forces, rather, it's about whether one's own domestic politicians should be in the business of a witch hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question is Britain destroying its own military, the answer is no. But what seems to have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan is Left wing politicians think war is civil. They send soldiers to war and expect them to perform not as Soldiers but as an extension to social workers.

The Fluffy lives of the political left, the self hating classes have a warped view of the world. The fact they allow the Ambulance chasing lawyers to make mega money out of these claims, the fact British tax payers money is being used (legal aid) and on a no win no fee bases for Iraqis or Afghans is beyond a joke. - couple this with the political correctness which has infested every day life in the UK, a malady which has been spread throughout our education system for the last 20 years and now entered the work place from top to bottom, we are facing the consequence. So when you get a situation whereby the alleged perpetrator is British (soldier) and the Victim is a foreign national (Iraqi) automatically thanks to years of brow beating by the establishment and that includes trial by media. no-one will speak up, frightened to be seen to offend or worst still be called a racist.

The only good thing is the tide is turning, Theresa May as already stated she will protect troops from the legal witch hunt,

Theresa May, quote.

"Our troops - our men and women in our armed forces - go out there and put their lives on the line in order to defend us and do things that most people wouldn't be willing to do, in terms of going out and potentially paying the ultimate sacrifice for us.

"I think they should know that Government is on their side. They should have the confidence when they go into combat for us that they are able to do what is necessary to keep us safe and to defend this country.

"What we've seen in recent times is human rights legislation being used to generate all these vexatious claims and troops finding themselves in some difficulty and worrying and concerned about the future as a result of that.

"I think it's absolutely right that the Government should say to our troops 'We are on your side'.

Of course, if there are credible allegations of criminal behaviour, those need to be infestigated, but we need to stop this industry of vexatious claims which has grown up, with lawyers appearing to chase around to find anybody who will bring a claim against our troops."

Mrs May stressed that UK forces will at all times be required to operate in accordance with international humanitarian law - including the Geneva Conventions - and service law.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

And considering the amount of deranged bluster that most of these brasshats seem to come out with about the "threat from", currently, Russia, that's perhaps not such a bad thing. Could he get rid of Gen. Strangelove, the current NATO Chief, next, please? there's someone who's genuinely insane. 

 

Are you familiar with the Budget deal made a few years back by Obama and the Conservatives (so called)?  They referred to it as the Sequester.  It stated that unless the politicians from both parties reached a budget by a date certain, automatic spending cuts, across the board, would activate without fail, with no way to change them.  The military was hit worse than any other area of government, by far.  We have many instances where squadrons of aircraft are mission incapable because of lack of spare parts, fuel or training time.  It has become increasingly serious.  These brass hats have as part of their duties at the Flag level, to lobby for money for their branch of the service.  Fear mongering is often a subtle part of that but in today's climate, I think it represents less in the way of irrationality than usual.  China wants the South China sea to be their lake, even though millions of tons of international shipping depend on that waterway.  Since the 12-mile limit is in place so that all nations can freely navigate the world's oceans and seas, it makes China look like a threat to Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  Russia has acted in its interest in Crimea and is continuing to act in eastern Ukraine.  The consensus of world opinion is that Russia had no business invading Ukraine.  Crimea was understandable.  The EU and US sanctions on Russia have caused Vlad to start making trouble in various places and rather than coming down even harder, Obama basically gave him the M.E. for his own Fiefdom.  The US has been keeping Russia out of the region since the 1970's.  Russia, being sovereign is going to act in its own interests just as the US does.  Our goals rarely match.  Putin knows his military is not up to fighting conventionally with the US.  a US-less NATO, sure, but not the US.  He has been liberally threatening the use of nukes, even a first strike, as a deterrent to a weak US president.  Do you imagine Hildebeast will continue polishing his....uh..boots?  Those generals and admirals have to plan for all contingencies and since US citizens these days seem incapable of stringing together more than a couple of concrete thoughts at any given moment, they feel they MUST be frightened to get their attention.

I can respect the differing opinions about what the current role of US forces around the world, should be.  Perhaps you might consider the ramifications of their sudden absence in Europe, the M.E., and Pacific rim.  I don't have to be a Prophet to forecast a brief but horribly brutish and costly war where China actually crushes the militaries of the Philippines and Vietnam while also blockading Japan until their terms are met.  In Europe. Ukraine's military and some civilian infrastructure in the western region would be annihilated and the Baltic states would have no real choice but to fall back under Putin's sway.  In the M.E., I think not much would change soon.  The only new twist would be the abandonment of Israel and the circling of the Sunnis and Shias to destroy the nation.  The Arab nations are not overtly suicidal so I wouldn't expect a frontal attack in the manner of '48,'57, '67, or '73.  A Palestinian group with some sufficiently pretentious and zealous slogan might lay hands on a few chem/bio weapons from Assad's - or Iran's - stash and try to sucker punch them, though.  It's about 35-40 miles as the Scud flies, from Damascus to Jerusalem.  Most likely, Israel would shoot down the incoming but the chemicals would still cause a lot of terror, contamination and potential death.  If they launched a sufficient salvo that a few larger Scuds hit Haifa, Ashdod port or Tel Aviv, thousands of Israeli Jews could be gassed to death.  I don't think I have to paint a picture of what the Israeli retribution would look like, do I?

The point of this wall of text is that there are many realistic reasons for the Flag officers to be doom- sayers.  It's THEIR ass if they get caught unprepared for a threat they could have conceivably forseen but did not prepare for.  Those are the rules.  To understand just how brutally they can be enforced, just have a quick read about the career of Charles B. McVay, Captain,USN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._McVay_III

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.